Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 57416
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SUNDER MOHAN, J
A.Mohamed Irfan – Appellant
Versus
State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Karaikal. – Respondent
Crl.A.No.495 of 2017
For the Appellant/Petitioners: Mr.R.Vivekananthan
For the Respondent: Mr.M.V.Ramachandramurthy, Mr.A.Alexander
The conviction under the POCSO Act was set aside due to substantial delays and evidentiary insufficiencies in the prosecution's case.
Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 12 - Conviction and sentencing for minor offences against a school girl - Delay in lodging the FIR not automatically leading to acquittal if cogent evidence exists. (Paras 3, 4, 10)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Appeal against conviction - Appeallate courts must consider evidential insufficiencies, and any gaps in the prosecution's case. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of stalking a school girl and causing injuries when colliding with her two-wheeler, leading to his conviction under the POCSO Act. However, the prosecution's case hinged on the credibility of testimony and the absence of key witnesses.
Findings of Court:
The court deemed the evidence presented insufficient and unreliable, pointing to the failure to examine critical witnesses and documentary proof regarding hospitalization.
Issues: Whether the prosecution sufficiently established a timeline and credibility of the testimonies to warrant conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court ruled that the conviction cannot be upheld due to substantial lapses in the prosecution’s evidentiary support, including a significant delay in the lodging of the FIR and the lack of key witness testimony.
Result: The appeal is allowed; conviction and sentence set aside with acquittal of charges.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction based on the pocso act and supporting testimonies. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the delay and absence of key witnesses. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the sole accused, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon him for the offence under Section 12 of the POCSO Act, vide judgment dated 31.07.2017 in Spl.C.C.No.11 of
2016, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Karaikal.
2(i) It is the case of the prosecution that the victim, a school girl was repeatedly and constantly stalked by the appellant, who had made inappropriate remarks against the victim, whenever she walked along the road, starting from the first week of February 2015; that on 10.04.2015 at about 7.00 p.m., while the victim was riding a two-wheeler in which her mother travelled as a pillion rider, the appellant came in his two-wheeler in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two-wheeler of the victim girl and caused injuries to both the victim and her mother; and thus, committed the offences.
(ii) On 07.05.2015, PW1 the father of the victim had lodged a complaint [Ex.P1] stating the aforesaid facts, which was registered by the Inspector of Police [PW7] as an FIR [Ex.P6] in Cr.No.73 of 2015 for the offence under Sections 12 of POCSO Act and Section 354 D and 506(1) of the IPC.
(iii) PW8 the Inspector of Police, took up the investigation and filed a final report against the accused for the offences under Sections 12 of the POCSO Act and Section 506(i) of the IPC, before the Sessions Court, Karaikal.
(iv) On the appearance of the appellant, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C ., were complied with, and the case was taken on file as Spl.C.C.No.11 of 2016 and the trial Court framed charges against the appellant/accused for the offences under Section 12 of the POCSO Act and Section 506 (i) of the IPC, and when questioned, the accused pleaded 'not guilty'.
(v) To prove its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.8 and marked seven exhibits as Exs.P1 to Ex.P7. When the accused was questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C ., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. The accused neither examined any witness nor marked any document on his side.
(vi) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 12 of the POCSO Act and acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 506(1) of the IPC. The appellant was convicted to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under of the POCSO Act. Hence, the accused has preferred the appeal challenging the said conviction and sentence.
3. Mr.R.Vivekananthan, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is a huge delay of nearly 27 days in lodging the complaint; that the allegations in any case are false; that since the appellant had lodged a complaint against the victim girl for riding the vehicle without a valid licence, the instant complaint was lodged; that the mother of the victim girl who is said to have travelled along with victim girl was not examined by the prosecution; that though it is claimed by PW1 and PW2 (victim), that the delay in lodging the complaint was due to the fact that the victim and her mother took treatment in an hospital, no evidence has been produced to substantiate the said explanation; and therefore, prayed for acquittal.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) appearing for the respondent per contra submitted that in a case of this nature, the delay by itself would not be a ground for acquittal in light of the cogent evidence of the victim girl [PW2], who had spoken about the harassment she had suffered since February 2015. He also pointed out the evidence of PW2 to show that the delay in lodging the complaint was due to the fact that she was taking treatment in a hospital. Ther
